memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/archive
Cancellation As of February 2, 2005-Enterprise has been cancelled :I would say All Good Things.......... but I would be lying. ::Enterprise was just getting better. Those fools. They can't leave us like that... Perhaps they continue the story with a movie? Or the show restarts later on, dealing with the foundation of the Federation or the Romulan War? .... Why am I dreaming? --BlueMars 11:14, Feb 3, 2005 (CET) :I would rather see Enterprise continued on the big screen, instead of assembling a new cast.-Rebelstrike2005 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (CET) ::: I would like to remind every one that talk pages are not discussion forums. If you want to talk about the cancellation of Enterprise, please visit the SCN or TrekBBS, et al. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:55, Feb 3, 2005 (CET) "Closing the franchise for good"? What's the source for this quote? It seems odd to me: I can understand a Paramount spokesperson saying that they were closing the Star Trek office that's been at Paramount/Viacom since 1987 or so, but what does it mean to close a franchise? It seems improbable to me that a Paramount spokesperson would close the door on all future Trek, instead of saying that it "needs a rest" or something like that. The current wording on the page indicates that Paramount plans never to make any more Star Trek ever again, which isn't the case AFAIK. What is the case is that they have no plans to make more Trek at this time, which is different from "closing the franchise for good". -- Josiah Rowe 03:56, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT) :I wonder if this means that the restrictions on publishing fan fiction Via Pocket Books will be lifted. I would love to see both professional writers and amature writers come up with various and different adventures for starships other than the USS Enterprise... I suppose I mean, where the writer will have no restrictions at all. Like what had been in place before the Next Generation. Time Travler 03:37am 15 Feb 2005 (USCST) :: I heard they were working on a Trek 11 movie, set sometimes after Enterprise. Perharps it would be time for something really different. Something not focused on a starfleet crew. Something with aliens, or federation civilians heroes, but with lots of connection with starfleet (so that it remains trek). :: A long-lasting proposal : a klingon ship. In TNG era, klingons and Fed ar more or less allies, this facilitates a klingon POV series : klingons are not so "bad guys" as they used to be, and we could easily have one or two starfleet "observers" on board (being there bcause of officier exchanges, like T'Pol and Phlox on the NX-01). Watchers would probably feel better if one of the main cast is human. :: The maquis could be a nice candate too. It would allow lots of connections wih existing DS9 plots. It would also give the writer the possibility to use characters from all usual species (including humans!). Also, a change would be the limited supplys : our heroes would struggle to get spare parts for their ships, weapons, antimatter fuel, torpedoes, and so on. No wealthy starfleet to give supply! Also, it would be an occasion to explore more of the "undergrounds" of trek Galaxy : arm dealers, terrorists, missionaries, an so on. :: Yet anoher proposal : The Dyson sphere from . It's a fascinating construction. Probably the largest object in the galaxy. It has the internal space of 250 000 000 planets. It must have extremely advanced technologies. The whole Quadrant could try to get an hand on it. It may also have served as a hiding place for defectors or refugees for millenias. It's a shame this Sphere ended up as an "object of the week" that was never mentionned again! There could be dozens of stories to write about it. It could be the frame for a short series. -- :::I couldn't stand the testosterone levels of a Klingon-POV movie/show and a Maquis one would be pointless since we already know their fate. The other idea sounds interesting though. --Ben Sisqo 21:30, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::I fear you're right about the klingons. In fact, most alien species (especially those featured as ennemies) in trek are very stereotyped, with behabiours heavily twisted toward one or two distinct traits : Warrior's Glory for klingons, Greed for Ferengi, Arrogance for Romulan... ::This makes them uneasy to feature as main heros. Good charaters for a movies, a novel, or, for that matter, a series, need to be multi-faceted. On the oyther hand, we could learn from them POV that while a iven species gives a very caricatural apparereance to foreigners, they're not that simple, and not all alike when you know them better. ::A maquis series (say Star Trek:Val Jean) would be a ind of tragedy, where we know from th beginning that the heros are doomed. I agree this would be very difficult for writers to make it interesting enough. ::The Star Trek:Dyson Sphere idea would bring less different to previous series : It would be Federaton, but partly civilian. Half of the geros could be archeologiest from the Daystrom institute, half would be starfllet (given the sphere's strategic importance, starfleet would probably assign a pair of ship to defend it. --Rami 14:52, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) 14:45, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::::What we need is a DS9 movie damnit. --Vedek Dukat ''Talk'' | ''Duty Roster'' 14:59, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::::: Who's up for a series taking place immediately after the founding of the Federation (or the interspecies alliance that would give birth to it), with Archer in command of the [[Daedalus class|USS Daedalus NCC-100]] and Shran as his first officer? :D --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) PNA What is this PNA thing that is posted at the top of the page? -- Enzo Aquarius 16:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC) :it's not a good thing, so don't ask about it WooHOO!!!!! NOT A SPOILER, it's on enterprise's website : ENTERPRISE ISN'T REAL!IT'S JUST A HOLODECK PROGRAM ON THE ENTERPRISE-D! HOOOORAY! NON-CANON! just another screwy TNG holodeck program gone wrong!!!! Star Trek has been saved! -of course Jonathan Frakes gaining 100 lbs and playing a TNG era riker is a minor continuity problem, but WHO CARES! ENTERPRISE IS A HOLODECK PROGRAM! On a side note, didn't they used to try and hide the fact that they've been owned by the Scifi Channel for the last two years, oh well, so their last episode looks a lot like babylon 5's last episode on scifi, and so what if they were dumb enough to reuse the headset thingie from farscape, at least they're ending it!--BringerOfDoom 01:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (AKA 24.45.249.91) :I'm not really interested in any bashing of the show because it was cancelled, it was actually a pretty enjoyable, if uneven, series -- and this page wasn't meant for criticism, just discussion of the quality of the article itself ("MA is not a forum" and all that). :I know ENT's last episode was presented as a Star Trek:TNG holoprogram, what was said that would lead you to believe it wasn't a depiction of a real event? (I haven't seen the episode, just the last few minutes). Was it stated, or simply implied? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ::Neither. Clearly aimed at being history. Tyrant 04:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant :::Ditto. I just watched the episode, and it was clearly a holo-recreation of a historical event. Randee15 05:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC) :Good to know. Riker did look out of place. His weight wasn't as wierd as his gray beard -- they could have added some coloring or something. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ::::As a responce to the first post in this section, "These are the voyages..."was the only episode recreated in the holodeck. Riker and Troi were watching the crew shortly before the NX-01 was retired. The rest of the series was real(what i define as real is not a holodeck program" Janewayfan4497 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Enterprise and Star Trek timeline I had an unsettling thought as I was reading about the possibility that Daniels' death was reverted as the timeline reset itself. If Daniels and Jonathan Archer were kept out of normal space-time as it reset itself, the implication would be that the previous three years had not happened in the "real" timeline and noone but Archer and Daniels could know about events preceding the end of . By that logic, all references to those events (such as in ) would render those episodes and references as existing in a parallel universe, not unlike the principle of the Krenim Timeship in ( and ). Technically, events preceding the 4th Season could be apocryphal.--Mike Nobody 08:23, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC) :That would mean the Temporal Cold War itself never happened, which clearly wasn't the case, since Daniels stated that the war would be coming to an end (not prevented) thanks to Archer. (Also, you can see an image of Archer running in when the timeline was resetting). Daniels was killed after the Cold War turned "hot", but Archer's actions prevented that from ever happening, so Daniels, in turn, never died. The Cold War was still fought, but Vosk was stopped before he initiated full-scale warfare. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 08:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC) I think whether fans like it or not, the powers-that-be are going to render a LOT of Star Trek as apocryphal (as alernate universe/timelines). Why? Maintaining the integrity of the franchise is too cumbersome and limiting for writers. Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga almost admitted as much in the commentary on . That, somehow, to make their jobs easier they need to clean the slate and start over. While I would personally abhor "cleaning the slate" in such a way, I understand what they mean. Designating chunks of 'Trek history to another universe would be a logical, pragmatic way to clean up the innumerable mistakes accumulated over the decades. It would also be the most merciful way to ignore abominations like . I mean, c'mon, TNG's is a damn good episode. But, it takes place entirely in dimensions outside the canon 'Trek universe. Voyager is riddled with continuity screw-ups that cannot be explained any other way. I know fans are very protective of the original intent of the writers, producers, actors, etc. But, is no stranger to Star Trek.--Mike Nobody 09:49, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) As for the argument that the Temporal Cold War "never happened", regardless of whether anyone but Archer and Daniels remember those events, those events still happened...to Archer and Daniels (in each version of the timeline they experienced). Everyone else would just go, "Huh? What the hell are you talking about?"--Mike Nobody 10:08, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::I don't consider the work required to be all that daunting. I mean, what are they, a bunch of pussies? "It's too much work" is a pretty poor excuse. But what is the point of having a solid continuity anyway? Why is it necessary? Just leave it be.--TheCurse Feb. 18, 2006 Enterprise lizard people episode? Did Enterprise have an episode like this? Or I have I been at the Romulan ale again? Ben Sisko 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :I do not believe so. There was one episode in Season 3 called where Archer, Reed and Hoshi are turned into another species, but not lizards (to my recollection). There was no transformation episodes in Season 4, and my knowledge of Seasons 1 and 2 are shaky. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :: The Xindi-Reptilians are all through Season 3 as well, is that what you're thinking of? The Suliban have a salamander-quality too... --Aurelius Kirk 07:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC) ::: Or the Arkonian seen in --Tim Thomason 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Canon I was wondering if Enterprise is really considered Canon...I mean it goes against so much of what we see in the previous series' It has been bugging me forever...I would like to hear some thoughts : Yep, it's canon, it was live-action, on TV, supported (and made) by Paramount and all that jazz.--Tim Thomason 03:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :: In addition, it should be noted that the only people who have trouble accepting the show as canon are those who like to be "spoon-fed" their canon rather than using their own imagination and intelligence to come up with their own explanations. In reality, if people would stop and think about things, Enterprise did not contradict anything. Also, they're not the only series to presumably go against established canon. For my entire rant on this subject, see this discussion here. --From Andoria with Love 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Sir I do not believe that your theory is correct. I enjoy thinking up explanations for things. For one I enjoyed trying to think up explanations for the Klingon forehead ridges...however, when I tried to think up explanations for the disregard of the canon when the Enterprise meets ferengi and borg...I cannot think of any explanation. I even go as far as saying the the existance of the NX Enterprise is against canon due to the fact that it has been mentioned in several episodes prior that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was the FIRST starship Enterprise. I would also like to state that I do not hate the show Enterprise at all. I think it is a very good show. I however think that it should not be considered canon--Ramdar Goftar ::::This conversation is going to end, now. Enterprise is canon. Live with it. Anything else on that subject does not belong on this talk page. They are not here for long out discussions on personal issues people have with the different series. If that is what you want, go to TrekBBS, not here. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC) ::Agreed, this discussion must end now and I apologize for making my comment in the first place. However, I would like to direct Mr. Goftar to this page here. And that's it; this discussion is over. --From Andoria with Love 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Accepted, the Enterprise series is "official" canon; nevertheless, it does contradict many points established in previously written canon sources, significantly more then in other series. This is not just opinion; It is a verifiable fact that there are contradictions. That there are more then in any other series, is something that I lack the time to verify (have to watch every episode veeery carefully, counting...). However, I do think that this is worthy of at least a passing reference in this page. I would even advocate mentioning the existence of disagreement as to whether this is canon or not. Granted it is officially, but there are a LOT of people (not just a minority) who believe that Enterprise does not take place in the same universe as Star Trek, and should be considered a seperate series which just happens to be very similar. :::::But there were just as many people who believed that TMP or TNG weren't in the Star Trek universe because of their differences. Point is, aside from the fact that Paramount said so, they are part of the same universe and their production teams always intended them to be. The bigger issue, I think, will come with the new film in 2009, where (at least visually) the team aren't too concerned with fictional Trek history or keeping in with what has gone before. --Mada101 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC) ::"This is not just opinion; It is a verifiable fact that there are contradictions." Actually, that's your opinion and the opinion of a vocal group of fans, not necessarily a fact. You can say that Enterprise seems to contradict from other Star Trek movies and show, but you can't verify it because every so-called contradiction you come up with, people like me will be able to explain them from an in-universe perspective. Then again, since every single movie and nearly every single episode of every single Trek series seem to contradict other movies and episodes, stating that Enterprise seems to have also contradicted things is pointless. I never got how Enterprise became the culprit of so-called continuity bashing when every other show has done the same thing, sometimes to a greater extent. In any case, what one group of fans think about the show is irrelevant to this project. --From Andoria with Love 08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Why? Ok, I've heard people complaning about VOY and ENT but WHY! State your reasoning because personally I like all of them. --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Open Hailing Frequencies]] 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :Memory Alpha, and especially this talk page, is not the place for this discussion. This talk page is only for discussion on changes needing to be made to the content of the article, not personal feelings. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)